Look, please understand that I agree with the concerns you guys are bringing up. But don't you think it's a little Utopian (to put it nicely) to blithely make comparisons between gasoline and electric cars as if the choice really was renewable vs nonrenewable energy? If you are as big of an environmental buff as you claim then you are aware that renewable energy currently comprises a small percentage of US production.
I agree that electric cars are a good idea, but by themselves, they are a waste of time. They must be accompanied by a change in energy production policy.
And the suggestion that subsidies aren't important cannot be taken seriously. If you are under the impression that Mr. I-love-my-Mustang will just drop trou' at the sight of an EV, you are mistaken. For certain segments of the public, energy awareness is a priority which easily overrides their gearhead desires (if any). This, however does not apply to most people. The public wants it fast, easy, cheap, sexy and powerful, and all at once. EVs currently fail on at least one of those categories and the main thing bringing Joe Average to the dealer is the smell o' green (and I ain't talkin' about the forest). Don't fool yourself into thinking the public cares about the ozone. They want easy fixes. (Which is also a good explanation for why Linux hasn't caught on with the mass public yet and in present form never will.)
On the one hand, I agree with most of your points. On the other, it seems you are placing the concerns I outlined into the "we'll deal with it when we get to it" drawer. Now, this works fine when you're coding by yourself. But if you're talking about code which replaces those 10 hojillion scripts, that's a poor strategy.
Granted, it is easier to replace one power plant than half a billion cars. But, it very messy to start replacing a half billion cars only to decide halfway through the technology sucks and we have to replace them again. Was it worth the public-awareness value to waste the implementation money rather than having spent it on a more viable, more forward-looking technology?
Granted, large plants produce less pollution than the energetically-equivalent amount of cars. But, to have all energy be provided by large plants would require us to supply huge amounts of energy to refilling stations in, say, the middle of Nebraska. Or Kansas. Or Canada.
Granted, large plants have scrubbers. But, cars have catalytic converters. Man, you can plug your schnoz right into a modern Honda exhaust and come away fine these days.
Granted, replacing the technology on several thousand powerplants is easier than half a billion cars. But, it ain't that much easier.
And about the subsidies - in my own city, electric car subsidies include: not having to pay the parking meter, lowered taxes (added to the one-time federal tax break), use of HOV lanes, free recharges at many POIs and chick-magnet value, among others. So, let's be clear; I agree that subsidies are a good thing and I'm all for increasing them (especially at the cost of Detroit's pilferers), but they are not "pretty minor". Perhaps compared to Germany's socialistic government services they are, but not here in the land of trillion-dollar tax cuts.
Electric cars aren't the environmental dream they appear to be; the electricity needs to be produced somewhere, donnit? And the main reason they seem like such a lovely alternative (financially, noise and air pollution, size, etc) is because they are heavily subsidized.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love the things for aesthetics alone, and I sure won't complain that I didn't get a ticket for not feeding the meter (L.A.), but until electricity production is moved away from petroleum and its ilk, the demise of one only-recently-given-a-crap-about company that produced a few models shouldn't be something to lose sleep over.
Regarding the support costs, please remember that:
M$ charges an arm and a leg for support, so the ratio is already shifted a priori . (And don't think there won't be demand for support, considering the difference in language setup!)
The government may have well expected to be the one supplying the support.
The government may have not thought of the issue of support at all.
Let us suppose that for some unforeseeable reason, the average IQ in the the US is boosted by 9 points due to some secret added ingredient to everyone's favorite breakfast food (whatever the poll proves that to be) and not only are all the current Ultra/Super/etc DMCAs killed off, but even the DMCA itself is ruled unconstitutional...
Would the handful of students recently slapped with outrageous fines under said act for distributing music be lawfully permitted to seek retribution for what will likely be a grievous blemish on their CVs? And if so, what compensation can be sought for what equates to McCarthyesque blacklisting?
Slashdot Mirror
Look, please understand that I agree with the concerns you guys are bringing up. But don't you think it's a little Utopian (to put it nicely) to blithely make comparisons between gasoline and electric cars as if the choice really was renewable vs nonrenewable energy? If you are as big of an environmental buff as you claim then you are aware that renewable energy currently comprises a small percentage of US production.
I agree that electric cars are a good idea, but by themselves, they are a waste of time. They must be accompanied by a change in energy production policy.
And the suggestion that subsidies aren't important cannot be taken seriously. If you are under the impression that Mr. I-love-my-Mustang will just drop trou' at the sight of an EV, you are mistaken. For certain segments of the public, energy awareness is a priority which easily overrides their gearhead desires (if any). This, however does not apply to most people. The public wants it fast, easy, cheap, sexy and powerful, and all at once. EVs currently fail on at least one of those categories and the main thing bringing Joe Average to the dealer is the smell o' green (and I ain't talkin' about the forest). Don't fool yourself into thinking the public cares about the ozone. They want easy fixes. (Which is also a good explanation for why Linux hasn't caught on with the mass public yet and in present form never will.)
Granted, it is easier to replace one power plant than half a billion cars.
But, it very messy to start replacing a half billion cars only to decide halfway through the technology sucks and we have to replace them again. Was it worth the public-awareness value to waste the implementation money rather than having spent it on a more viable, more forward-looking technology?
Granted, large plants produce less pollution than the energetically-equivalent amount of cars.
But, to have all energy be provided by large plants would require us to supply huge amounts of energy to refilling stations in, say, the middle of Nebraska. Or Kansas. Or Canada.
Granted, large plants have scrubbers.
But, cars have catalytic converters. Man, you can plug your schnoz right into a modern Honda exhaust and come away fine these days.
Granted, replacing the technology on several thousand powerplants is easier than half a billion cars.
But, it ain't that much easier.
And about the subsidies - in my own city, electric car subsidies include: not having to pay the parking meter, lowered taxes (added to the one-time federal tax break), use of HOV lanes, free recharges at many POIs and chick-magnet value, among others. So, let's be clear; I agree that subsidies are a good thing and I'm all for increasing them (especially at the cost of Detroit's pilferers), but they are not "pretty minor". Perhaps compared to Germany's socialistic government services they are, but not here in the land of trillion-dollar tax cuts.
Who cares?
Electric cars aren't the environmental dream they appear to be; the electricity needs to be produced somewhere, donnit? And the main reason they seem like such a lovely alternative (financially, noise and air pollution, size, etc) is because they are heavily subsidized.
Now, don't get me wrong, I love the things for aesthetics alone, and I sure won't complain that I didn't get a ticket for not feeding the meter (L.A.), but until electricity production is moved away from petroleum and its ilk, the demise of one only-recently-given-a-crap-about company that produced a few models shouldn't be something to lose sleep over.
M$ charges an arm and a leg for support, so the ratio is already shifted a priori . (And don't think there won't be demand for support, considering the difference in language setup!)
The government may have well expected to be the one supplying the support.
The government may have not thought of the issue of support at all.
...as long as you're a good Thaipist. ducks
Let us suppose that for some unforeseeable reason, the average IQ in the the US is boosted by 9 points due to some secret added ingredient to everyone's favorite breakfast food (whatever the poll proves that to be) and not only are all the current Ultra/Super/etc DMCAs killed off, but even the DMCA itself is ruled unconstitutional...
Would the handful of students recently slapped with outrageous fines under said act for distributing music be lawfully permitted to seek retribution for what will likely be a grievous blemish on their CVs? And if so, what compensation can be sought for what equates to McCarthyesque blacklisting?